Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple commits $430B in US investments over five years

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 265 posts

Re: Apple commits $430B in US investments over five years

#251

Post by StandardFuture »

rmah wrote: post #212
RhodoGSA wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My money SHOULD be worth more tomorrow than it is today. Tomorrow the economy is just a tad bit more productive, so my dollar should go further... Why is deflation a curse word nowadays? I feel one of governments only role is to ensure that the dollar is not being debased and slowly losing value of time or atleast at a rate that is known. When the FED prints an unlimited supply of money, it breaks down the social con…

Having money worth more tomorrow than today is how you get a stagnant economy and misery for everyone but the very rich. It's how you depress consumption and investment. It's how you destroy a nation. Money is not wealth. Money is a tool. The goal, at a macro level, is not to have people having big piles of money. Because money, in and of itself, is not that important. What matters is how the money is used. And the m…

> Money is not wealth. Money is a tool.

Can you please stop making up your own economics? A currency is an asset. End. Of. Story.

Deflation is a directional property of an exchange rate between a pair of assets.

By "used" you mean traded. And yes trade increasing (of which consumer spending is a kind of trading) is a good thing. You only get that with volatility. This can be created through an inflation but dually it is also created through deflation.

There is nothing wrong or immoral about a particular asset going up or down in price relative to another asset.

This unscientific stance of considering all deflation as immoral is based on absolutely nothing except emotional propaganda.

You have provided exactly zero proofs verifying that any and all deflation in a currency is a bad thing. And you will never be able to provide such a "proof" because it does not exist.

Let's see if you are even capable of constructing a proper intellectual retort. My doubts run high.

Re: Apple commits $430B in US investments over five years

#252

Post by StandardFuture »

pram wrote: post #243
StandardFuture wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The dollar depreciates and appreciates against commodities and other currencies all the time. Bingo! But, I do not see anyone complaining about this "only benefiting the creditors". > econ 101 To be fair, I find a reference to very weakly approximating models of reality, taught to ignorant and naïve students for the sake of starting them off somewhere, to be slightly disingenuous. > Appreciation due to contracting…

Money isn't a natural phenomenon. You say it's unnatural for a central bank or government to intervene, but it's their currency. Its existence is inherently political, and serves an interest or policy goal. Be it capital accumulation to boomers or whatever else. They can also pick losers, if they really wanted. Look at Lehman Brothers. The dollar, and its associated monetary policy, isn't something that has been perv…

> Money isn't a natural phenomenon.

Asset trading is about as natural to human civilization as you can get. Having a socially accepted intermediary asset is not much beyond that. Simply saying its not a "natural phenomenon" is not a mathematical or scientific self-validating statement. It's just a statement.

> it's their currency.

Yes, and literally anyone can create a currency out of thin air. Other people will use it if they decide to assign it value.

> Its existence is inherently political

No, It's existence is civilizational. It technologically fulfills the ability to have high transaction rates of an increasing population that other assets can not satisfy. the ability to transact more easily and more quickly is what determines the bounds of the potential of an economy. So, of course, all major civilizations have utilized this technological tool for political means. As a way to increase and concentrate power through economics.

This is fundamentally different from intermediary assets being constructed initially as a political tool. Money is technology. It is not politics. Like literally any other technology it can be used politically.

> isn't something that has been perverted by evil external forces

I am not sure what insanity you are trying to project onto me, but I never even came close to implying anything along these lines. You should attempt to avoid fallacious arguments a little harder.

> some fanciful alternative perfect system

You mean like your supposedly perfectly controlled and singular monetary systems with artificial inflation hoses? Have you seen the economy?

If this is your dream economic system then why not live in China with even more inflation and more centralization? Or maybe you already do. Genuine question, nonetheless.

Re: Apple commits $430B in US investments over five years

#253

Post by hurril »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #227
hurril wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You construct the same kind of false dichotomy that is so incredibly common among the but duh rich and duh poor blahblah do. There are more categories than the ultra rich and the incredibly poor. Stop that. A lot of people can save 10-20% in stocks (such as via index funds.) A lot of people would rather not do this and still complain and point sticks at "the rich." What can you do? "The reason is that being a shareho…

What an unnecessarily combative response. Saving 10% of your paycheck doesn't make you incredibly poor, and saving 50% doesn't make you ultra rich. Making $50k and spending $45k versus making $90k and spending $45k.

Because you said this:

"Getting rich via investment depends on having income above a threshold which is set by the cost of living."

It's just not necessary to talk about getting rich. Getting rich is not relevant in this context. You made claims that are blatantly false that are part of the ever tiresome either rich or poor-dichotomy.

Most people can save money and invest that money in a way that makes them shareholders.

Re: Apple commits $430B in US investments over five years

#254

Post by fguerraz »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #145
fguerraz wrote: post #123

Also, with many trillion dollars of money printed recently vs 0 CNY, it is very likely that the value of the USD will slide significantly compared to RMB. It is not that far-fetched to think that in a not so distant future China consider the USA (and Europe) as sources of cheap manufacturing.

I am confused by this comment. "[M]any trillion dollars of money printed recently" -- are you talking about the US Federal Reserve? That isn't money printing; it is quantitative easing -- now also practiced by European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, and Bank of England. It does not cause inflation. If anything, weirdly, it appears to cause deflation. Money printing is Weimar Republic (~1920s) or Zimbabwe (2000-2010). I…

Don't be confused, yes QE is virtual is money printing, yes it will cause either:

* Inflation.

* Re-evaluation of the exchange rates

* Supply issues if the above two do not happen

Time will tell :-) But the main reason it hasn't happened yet is because the money that has been printed (or whatever) has not made its way to the real economy yet, it has mostly gone to the financial markets. When people will try to use that money for real, that's when sh* will hit the fan

Re: Apple commits $430B in US investments over five years

#255

Post by pram »

StandardFuture wrote: post #252
pram wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money isn't a natural phenomenon. You say it's unnatural for a central bank or government to intervene, but it's their currency. Its existence is inherently political, and serves an interest or policy goal. Be it capital accumulation to boomers or whatever else. They can also pick losers, if they really wanted. Look at Lehman Brothers. The dollar, and its associated monetary policy, isn't something that has been perv…

> Money isn't a natural phenomenon. Asset trading is about as natural to human civilization as you can get. Having a socially accepted intermediary asset is not much beyond that. Simply saying its not a "natural phenomenon" is not a mathematical or scientific self-validating statement. It's just a statement. > it's their currency. Yes, and literally anyone can create a currency out of thin air. Other people will use…

I think you're the one doing a fair amount of projection my guy. My dream economic system? lol

Re: Apple commits $430B in US investments over five years

#256

Post by sizzle »

mft_ wrote: post #206
Angostura wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just an FYI - I'm not sure what word you were reaching for, but it wasn't 'platitude' in this context. Perhaps 'plethora' or 'multitude'.

Neither would work well with the preceding ‘wide’.

“wide latitude”

Re: Apple commits $430B in US investments over five years

#257

Post by StandardFuture »

pram wrote: post #255
StandardFuture wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Money isn't a natural phenomenon. Asset trading is about as natural to human civilization as you can get. Having a socially accepted intermediary asset is not much beyond that. Simply saying its not a "natural phenomenon" is not a mathematical or scientific self-validating statement. It's just a statement. > it's their currency. Yes, and literally anyone can create a currency out of thin air. Other people will use…

I think you're the one doing a fair amount of projection my guy. My dream economic system? lol

I am not your guy, buddy.

Re: Apple commits $430B in US investments over five years

#258

Post by sumedh »

gruez wrote: post #98
sumedh wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are lobbying to increase taxes and giving away their wealth. What more do you want from them? Are you paying more taxes than you are required to?

> They are lobbying to increase taxes and giving away their wealth. What more do you want from them? I think you're misreading my comment. It wasn't meant to shame buffet/gates for not paying more taxes, it was to point out that even they are going to act in their self interest in terms of paying taxes. ie. they won't pay more taxes than they need do.

They are donating their wealth so its not like they are going to hoard the money because the tax is low. So I dont really understand why you think they should pay more than the official tax for now

Re: Apple commits $430B in US investments over five years

#260

Post by dang »

anon_tor_12345 wrote: post #90
ABeeSea wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that sounds like charity or even framed as charity. They need workers to work at these factories they are building. US workers don’t have those skills. So they need a training center for their business investment to work out.

man you people are coming out of the woodwork to simp for apple; if what you're saying were true then the language wouldn't be so topical and timely (eg alluding to hbcus).

Please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments to HN. You've been doing both of those things repeatedly lately, and we ban that sort of account.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.

Post reply on HN